<scp>GP</scp>Practices as a One‐Stop Shop: How Do Patients Perceive the Quality of Care? A Cross‐Sectional Study in Thirty‐Four Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To contribute to the current knowledge on how a broad range of services offered by general practitioners (GPs) may contribute to the patient perceived quality and, hence, the potential benefits of primary care. STUDY SETTING: Between 2011 and 2013, primary care data were collected among GPs and their patients in 31 European countries, plus Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. In these countries, GPs are the main providers of primary care, mostly specialized in family medicine and working in the ambulatory setting. STUDY DESIGN: In this cross-sectional study, questionnaires were completed by 7,183 GPs and 61,931 visiting patients. Moreover, 7,270 patients answered questions about what they find important (their values). In the analyses of patient experiences, we adjusted for patients' values in each country to measure patient perceived quality. Perceived quality was measured regarding five areas: accessibility and continuity of care, doctor-patient communication, patient involvement in decision making, and comprehensiveness of care. The range of GP services was measured in relation to four areas: (1) to what extent they are the first contact to the health care system for patients in need of care, (2) their involvement in treatment and follow-up of acute and chronic conditions, in other words treatment of diseases, (3) their involvement in minor technical procedures, and (4) their involvement in preventive treatments. EXTRACTION METHODS: Data of the patients were linked to the data of the GPs. Multilevel modeling was used to construct scale scores for the experiences of patients in the five areas of quality and the range of services of GPs. In these four-level models, items were nested within patients, nested in GP practices, nested in countries. The relationship between the range of services and the experiences of patients was analyzed in three-level multilevel models, also taking into account the values of patients. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In countries where GPs offer a broader range of services patients perceive better accessibility, continuity, and comprehensiveness of care, and more involvement in decision making. No associations were found between the range of services and the patient perceived communication with their GP. The range of GP services mostly explained the variation between countries in the areas of patient perceived accessibility and continuity of care. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that in countries where GP practices serve as a "one-stop shop," patients perceive better quality of care, especially in the areas of accessibility and continuity of care. Therefore, primary care in a country is expected to benefit from investments in a broader range of services of GPs or other primary care physicians.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".